This is such crap. Look at the fact since the 80's the rights for gun owners have increased substantially. The NRA would have you believe otherwise but in the 80's what 19 states had OC available to it? What attack are you talking about? What rights have been lost by gun owners? The people you elect can work out the details and you let them know how you feel. Freedom of speech is a right, and libel and slander are depicted as being no, no's and now illegal.
This country has laws and taking 30 round mags in no way limits your ability to carry a fire arm. Nobody is fencing you in and it has been the opposite for the last 30 years as rights are defined by the courts and expanded for gun owners. To preserve those rights and keep the favor of the population (who has the ability to change laws and constitution with their votes) certain sensible regulations must be made. It is countrproductive to encourge no regulation for guns. Did you watch the news where the guy was buying 40AKs a day and sending them to Mexico for the drug war? Regulation dictates that vendors must reportto the ATF anything over 2 hand guns per day. (this does not mean you cannot buy more but your intent may be viewed in comparison to existing laws) No mention of rifles. This regulation obviously failed and needs to be reworked as any regulation can be.
I was kind of hoping you'd address the points I made in my previous post. A genius of your caliber shouldn't have a problem, right?
Wow. For a genius, you sure do have bad sentence structure, poor punctuation, and shoddy transitions.
"This country has laws and taking 30 round mags in no way limits your ability to carry a fire arm"
Let's just look at one single sentence. "This country has laws and taking....." Huh? Do all geniuses start out with stating irrellevant, obvious information (This country has laws......really?), then change tense (and taking) and transition into completely unrelated and poorly punctuated (mags, in no way, limits), not to mention misspelled, (firearm) ramblings?
I would think a true genius wouldn't be ignorant enough to post absolute proof of the opposite.
But that's just dumb ol' me.
To preserve those rights and keep the favor of the population (who has the ability to change laws and constitution with their votes
Oh, my. Where do I begin. You would think a genius would realize the simplest fact that inalienable rights ALREADY EXIST, and the constitution simply enumerates them. Of course, since you're a self proclaimed genius, you fully realize the implications of this better than I do.
I will also spend more time researching how the population is able to amend the constitution with their votes as you have written. This must be some secret way that we dumb people are unaware of and only geniuses know about.
Silly me. Forgive me for thinking that congress would either have to 1) pass a bill by 2/3 majority through both houses before being sent to the states and ratified by 3/4 of them, or 2) Calling a Constitutional Convention and proposing an amendment that is then ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures or conventions.
But that's just dumb ol' me. Who am I to speak of procedures, laws, and constitutional amendments? I'm just some guy who's actually been exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and studying the law in order to do so legally. I should probably defer to your vast experience with how rights and the constitution work in reality. (BTW: I'm an elderly 39. Is 9 years long enough to get as stupid as you seem to think old folks are?)
As everyone else here probably feels also, I wish I could go back in time to when I still knew everything.
You remarked earlier about how the constitution and laws need to be updated to keep up with technology. This is not "liberal" as you have previously claimed to be. This is considered "progressive". You mistakenly believe the constitution needs to "progress" and change with the times. (Of course, a genius would know this, right?)
If you have a constitution, IT SETS FORTH A CONCRETE STANDARD. A constitution simply describes exactly what a thing (government) is and exactly how a thing (government) works.
THIS is America. A constitution simply states "AMERICA = THIS".
Maybe a genius could tell me what happens when you start changing a constitution to "progress" or evolve "with the times"?
THIS changes. Therefore, logically THIS no longer = AMERICA. If the founders created a place called AMERICA and set forth a constitution that describes exactly what AMERICA means, CHANGING that document makes it mean SOMETHING ELSE. The definition of AMERICA changes. It "progresses" or evolves.
I get the ignorant and short sighted progressive argument tossed at me all the time: "The founders never envisioned assault weapons, semi-automatics, and hi-capacity magazines!".
What an ignorant argument. Of course they didn't. It doesn't matter. Altering the constitution based on technology would be the last thing they thought would ever happen. You have to hold up the ENTIRE constitution to the same exact standard. IT IS NOT A CHINESE TAKE OUT MENU. You cannot simply say "These parts are acceptable for change, but these parts are not." It is either ALL available for alteration, or it is ALL unavailable.
Therefore,
if altering ONE part is acceptable by using the argument "The founders never envisioned high capacity magazines", IT IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE TO ALTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
After all, do you honestly think the founders envisioned Twitter? How about laptops? Did they forsee Droid phones or wireless internet?
Because if you are arguing for limits of our rights based on technology, it is also perfectly fine to limit our freedom of speech based on the same standard.
Of course, you probably know all this, being a genius, and all.
(Something tells me these points will fail to be addressed by PointofView like the first ones I made.)
